9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly agreed to pay the dues pertaining to M/s. Namokar Processors as and when the issue is decided in favour of the department. There is nothing in this undertaking to suggest that liabilities arising after undertaking will be paid by the Respondent. This aspect has to be examined in the latest judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Rana Girders Limited vs. UOI (supra) which was also not av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the first appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice dated 09.12.2005 was issued, inter-alia, to the present Respondent for attachment and recovery of certain confirmed duty and penalties as per OIO No. SRT-VI/ADJ/1076/2000/D dated 30.11.2000 under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that present appellant has taken over the premises from M/s. Namokar Processors through Gujarat State Financial Corporation. That the present dues, proposed to be recovered by attachment of properties, were pertaining to the period before the premises were taken over by the Respondent. That at the time of taking over, the present Respondent M/s. Rameshwar Textile Pvt. Limited gave an under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the reliance placed by the Revenue on an undertaking given by the Respondent in the year 2001 was not properly appreciated by the first appellate authority under which Respondent has clearly agreed to pay the dues pertaining to M/s. Namokar Processors as and when the issue is decided in favour of the department. There is nothing in this undertaking to suggest that liabilities arising after und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
